Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Did you get a great deal? Let us know in the Values & Prices Paid section!
Meet your fellow owners in our Owners Clubs

I spotted an (insert obscure car name here) classic car today!

1555556558560561964

Comments

  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Posts: 4,600
    edited February 2013
    "Weird sort of attraction" describes the appeal of Cimarrons for me perfectly. I can't say the same for the Catera, though. Although the Catera was a better car than the Cimarron, in terms of how it drove and fit in the Cadillac lineup of its day, most of them were high maintenance. For all of its faults the Cimarron wasn't high maintenance. By now, though, trim parts are probably virtually unobtainum.

    Besides, the Cimarron, like, say, the Aztek, is one of GM's big blunders. That makes it attractive in a weird sort of way, to use your words. The Catera, by contrast, kind of slid by rather annonomously. It's unremembered and unlamented. Sort of like that (Chrysler) Maserati TC or late '80s/early '90s Imperial.
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Crossroads of America I70 & I75 Posts: 23,701
    edited February 2013
    >Cimarron

    I believe I only saw ONE Cimarron during my summer where I viewed thousands of older cars at car shows and cruise-ins. I don't remember seeing any in the couple of previous summers where I saw almost as many cars each summer.

    I don't think the car deserves the ridicule heaped on it perpetually by some just like the Aztek doesn't deserve all, some but not all, ridicule. It was NOT a wunderauto but was a sincere attempt to come up with a smaller car to increase Cadillac's market. Admittedly it was not a stellar attempt but was more of an early experiement to see if an upgraded J-body would serve Cadillac.

    2015 Cruze 2LT, 2014 Malibu 2LT, 2008 Cobalt 2LT

  • tjc78tjc78 South JerseyPosts: 9,036
    I actually like those early 90s Imperials. They were very plush and could be loaded up for the times. They also got the 3.8 V6 so decent power as well. They probably have tranny issues as all the FWD 6 cyl Chryslers did.

    They were phased out in 93 and the LH platform was a giant leap forward.

    2017 Buick Enclave / 2019 Volvo S60 T6 Inscription

  • tjc78tjc78 South JerseyPosts: 9,036
    In many ways the Cimarron was ahead of its time. Look at all the entry level small luxury sedans that sell so well today. The only difference is today, the manufacturers can pull it off. In the early 80s it wasn't so easily done.

    2017 Buick Enclave / 2019 Volvo S60 T6 Inscription

  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 11,303
    I'd heard about that a week or so ago...very sad. Supposedly the guy is well-known in that area of SC and a nice guy, per people who know him. I've never met him nor spoken to him.
  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Posts: 4,600
    Regarding your first paragraph, the fact that there are so few Cimarrons remaining just makes it a more interesting item at car shows.

    Well, I can't disagree with your second paragraph. However, Cadillac's biggest mistake wasn't to use the J-body for an entry level model, but, rather, to not differentiate the Cimarron more from the Js in GM's lower level divisions. For example, if the Cimarron had had more differentiated styling, with more Cadillac cues, a plusher interior and a more powerful engine from the get go it could have justified its higher price. In other words, the problem wasn't in the concept, it was in the execution.
  • lemkolemko Philadelphia, PAPosts: 15,306
    Insurance or not, I'd be on the brink of suicide if I lost my 1989 Cadillac Brougham in a fire. Sure, I could get another one like it, but it won't be my car!
  • boomchekboomchek Vancouver, BC, CanadaPosts: 5,440
    edited February 2013
    The Cimarron would have done better if it didn't look so much like a Cavalier.

    I guess in the 80s it might have been hard to redo all of the body panels and the dashboard as they were cookie cutter square.

    These days you can add or remove a few different swoops from the body and the car will look totally different. I mean look at the Lexus ES series and the Camry. Both identical cars under the skin but they look different enough that people are willing to pay a 25-30% premium for the Lexus badge.

    EDIT: Just saw hpmctorque's post about the styling, I wrote mine before I read his, exactly my point.

    boomchek: driven 10,000+ cars, sold 1000+ cars, owned 50+ cars

  • stickguystickguy Posts: 33,742
    Or Nova. On 295, a mid-later 70's Nova 4 door. Burgendy, with a vinyl roof. Looked to be listing a bit to port, but was moving at highway speeds.

    2019 Acura TLX A-spec 4 cyl. (mine), and 2013 Acura RDX AWD (wife's)

  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Posts: 4,600
    In addition to the suggestions I made, Cadillac could have increased the wheelbase of its J-car by 2", thereby differentiating it in terms of interior space and rear seat legroom, as GM used to do to differentiate the Olds 88 and 98. The slightly longer Cimarron would have still been a compact, and fuel economy would have been only minimally affected. This way, buyers would have gotten more car for the higher price. Another precedent for this differentiation was the Nova and Seville.
  • fintailfintail Posts: 48,243
    edited February 2013
    Few oddballs today - Plymouth Prowler, 60s vintage Land Rover, horrible looking C6 Corvette on oversized body color wheels almost donk style.
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 11,303
    I liked the Beretta and Corsica when they first came out. Styling looked good, I thought. But the interiors were horrible. And when the Cavalier was redesigned and improved for 1995, I think it put some pressure on them.

    My '89 GT had nice seating, I always thought. It was a very light beige ribbed corduroy. First car I owned with a split folding rear-seat back, and it actually had a center armrest in the back, although the rear seat was kids-only IMHO.

    I liked the rear end styling of the Beretta, if you didn't get a spoiler. Still, it was the smallest car I'd owned up 'til that time and really, for me, too small to be an only car.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,490
    It's not the car that deserves abuse--that's true--it's Cadillac that deserves the abuse for trying to charge a Cadillac price for a Chevrolet with more sound-deadening material stuffed into it. That's what got everyone in a snit, and the car was, in a sense, an innocent victim of corporate greed.

    I think people felt insulted that Cadillac would think them so naive.
  • andys120andys120 Loudon NHPosts: 20,646
    I think you've summed it up correctly, Shifty. There was nothing inherently wrong with the concept of a small luxury sedan. BMW proved one could sell well if it was built to high standard.

    Their 3-Series has dominated the category to this day.

    2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93

  • fintailfintail Posts: 48,243
    And wasn't the Cimarron intended as kind of a response to the E21 3er? GM execs couldn't grasp that people weren't buying BMWs just for leather seats, not that easy.
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Crossroads of America I70 & I75 Posts: 23,701
    >...would think them so naive.

    The Seville had changes to the track, suspension, and other things IIRC over the Chevy upon which it was based. The problem with the Cimarron was that there were not many changes to actually make it a better performing car than the other J-cars.

    2015 Cruze 2LT, 2014 Malibu 2LT, 2008 Cobalt 2LT

  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,490
    Exactly--it was not a somewhat de-contented Cadillac, it was a tarted-up J-car. I guess it would be like Audi trying to market an A6 by putting nicer upholstery in a Jetta.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Or like Honda putting nicer leather in a Civic....wait.... :D
  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Posts: 4,600
    I saw a Beretta today. Even though the styling isn't contemporary it has aged well.
  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Posts: 4,600
    edited February 2013
    Yeah, right, the Acura ILX is a tarted up Civic EX at a jacked up price. Not as eggregious as the Cimmaron, maybe, but the comparison isn't too far fetched.

    I've read that the Acura folks have decided to give the ILX a power boost, even though the ILX's standard 2.0 engine is more powerful than the Civic's 1.8.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    It is also overpriced, even CR thinks so and they love Acuras in general.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 23,560
    The Acura ILX reminds me a bit of the Buick Verano, or what Mercury used to do, off and on, for most of their existence. While Acura at least went through some effort to make it look different from a Civic, that's all I can say for it. It looks different. But not better, nor upscale. In fact, it looks awkward from some angles, whereas I think a Civic looks decent for the most part.

    Same for the Buick Verano versus the Cruze.

    At least back in the old days, an Integra looked like a more substantial, upscale car compared to a Civic. The distinction did start to blur with the RSX though.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    edited February 2013
    The worst part is planning for the ILX is probably what made last year's Civic sub-par. They wanted to make the ILX seem better.

    Meanwhile the Elantra Limited shows up and embarrasses the Civic. Whoops.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 23,560
    The worst part is planning for the ILX is probably what made last year's Civic sub-par. They wanted to make the ILX seem better.

    There was a base level ILX at the DC auto show. Sitting in it, my first thought was, why the hell is this cloth? My second thought was, why the hell is this the same cheap-looking stuff that they'd use in a base-level pickup truck?

    And in the meantime, it looks like they really put some effort into sprucing up the 2013 Civic. They had a 2012 hybrid model there, and the 2013's made its interior look like crap.
  • stickguystickguy Posts: 33,742
    I thought the same thing until I saw it. There is really nothing Civic in the ILX that you can see. More like turning a VW into an Audi.

    Interior completely different, even the body panels are all different. Classic platform engineering, and upcontented.

    now, whether it is good enough to be a "luxury" car is another story, but it is not a re-badged civic.

    2019 Acura TLX A-spec 4 cyl. (mine), and 2013 Acura RDX AWD (wife's)

  • stickguystickguy Posts: 33,742
    parked in a strip mall, a late B (big bumpers). Classic red/orange color, and looked pretty darned clean. Tacky, but clean.

    2019 Acura TLX A-spec 4 cyl. (mine), and 2013 Acura RDX AWD (wife's)

  • ab348ab348 Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, CanadaPosts: 11,103
    I see nothing of the Cruze in the Verano. It looks completely different inside and out and seems larger too.

    2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6, 1968 Oldsmobile Cutlass S Holiday Coupe

  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Posts: 4,600
    Plus, the Verano's engines are bigger and considerably more powerful than the Cruz's.
  • boomchekboomchek Vancouver, BC, CanadaPosts: 5,440
    The nice thing about the ILX is it looks substantially different than the Civic. I don't believe they share any body panels or interior bits.

    Much better than the 2 generations of the Canada only Acura EL/Acura CSX it replaced that were identical to the Civic except for slightly different wheels, headlights, and a few more options like leather interior which wasn't available here in the Civic until last couple of years.

    image

    image

    boomchek: driven 10,000+ cars, sold 1000+ cars, owned 50+ cars

  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    My point remains - they had to de-content the Civic to make the ILX seem more luxurious. Neither car met my expectations.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 23,560
    My point remains - they had to de-content the Civic to make the ILX seem more luxurious. Neither car met my expectations.

    What did you think of the 2013 refresh of the Civic? I thought it was pretty nice.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Forgot to check it out, but I'd want a hatch anyway. The kids were tired at the auto show so I was rushed towards the end.
  • stickguystickguy Posts: 33,742
    I don't think decontenting the civic had anything to do with the ILX. They did not really take content out either (as in features) just cheaper materials.

    IMO. they tried to trim costs to compete with the Corolla and Koreans on price.

    2019 Acura TLX A-spec 4 cyl. (mine), and 2013 Acura RDX AWD (wife's)

  • Spotted TWO 1970 Nova(s) in the past week. One fooled me because the extensive body work eliminated all fender lights. The other looked pristine by comparison. One was a rather hideous deep red, the other a 'factory' light blue, just like a neighbor owned 'back then'. Bench seats sure made it easier to snuggle in those days ;)
  • texasestexases Posts: 8,940
    I saw two last-gen Celicas. Not unusual cars, sure, but they were identical (silver, GT I think), and parked next to each other at the shopping center. Odd.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 23,560
    and raise you another! Yesterday, at a traffic light, I saw two different '95-96 Caprices, both black. I thought one was an Impala SS at first because of the grille, but when it got the arrow and turned in front of me, I could see it was just a Caprice with the SS grille. It did have dual exhaust though, so probably had the 350 at least.
  • fintailfintail Posts: 48,243
    There's an SS slumbering in the garage where the fintail now lives - looked like it hadn't moved in awhile. I wonder if any market will develop for them.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 23,560
    I think those '94-96 SSes will have some collector value, and I think they do already. Part of the problem though, is that GM made a lot of them, and a lot of them survived because they were the last of a breed.

    GM built 6303 of them in '94, 21434 in '95, and 41,941 of the final '96 model. So, even if there's a big demand for them, there will always be a healthy supply.

    I think they'll end up in the same sort of league as the 80's Monte Carlo SS, or the Buick Regal T-type and Grand National. Not the GNX though, as GM only made 547 of those in 1987, and they had performance that was good even by today's standards. In contrast, I don't think a stock '94-96 Impala SS is much quicker than my Park Ave or Ram, or my buddy's Xterra.
  • tjc78tjc78 South JerseyPosts: 9,036
    I don't think a stock '94-96 Impala SS is much quicker than my Park Ave or Ram, or my buddy's Xterra.

    0-60 in 7.1 seconds.... so a stock 07+ Camry V6 will blow it away. I still say it's a cool car and I would own one. It is also a great base to start with as you can stuff just about anything under the hood.

    Speaking of "sport barges" I also like the 03-04 Mercury Marauder as well. It's performance was actually a bit slower than the SS, but IMHO a better looking car. I was thinking about getting one at one time, but it just never fell into place.

    2017 Buick Enclave / 2019 Volvo S60 T6 Inscription

  • fintailfintail Posts: 48,243
    edited February 2013
    That might be it, high survival rates. They seem to have depreciated to a floor now, maybe 10K for a nice one, but I don't see that increasing. Neither have the Monte SS etc like you mention. In 2000, a friend of mine paid ~6K for a nice 50K mile black on red 85 Monte SS. Probably worth about that now.

    The old tech/unremarkable performance is a factor too. They do have a look to them though, pretty cool for a boat.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,490
    The '96s are worth more than 94 or 95 because of the floor shift w/ console.

    Very low mileage, ultra clean ones can pull $15,000 or so.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 23,560
    0-60 in 7.1 seconds.... so a stock 07+ Camry V6 will blow it away. I still say it's a cool car and I would own one. It is also a great base to start with as you can stuff just about anything under the hood.


    Yeah, same here. Although I'd be just as happy with an LT1 Caprice, Roadmaster, or Fleetwood.

    I also like the 03-04 Mercury Marauder as well. It's performance was actually a bit slower than the SS, but IMHO a better looking car. I was thinking about getting one at one time, but it just never fell into place.

    Yeah, the Panthers in general just seemed like better proportioned cars than those bloated aero GM cars. I think one reason the Impala SS was held in higher regard is mythology. While there are a lot of mainstream cars today that can do 0-60 in 7.1 seconds or less, back in 1994-96 there weren't.

    But, in just a few years, all that changed. When Nissan stuck a 3.5 in the redesigned '02 Altima, I think that's what really opened up the horsepower wars in mainstream cars. And by the time the Marauder hit the streets, a V-6 Altima would probably blow it away, possibly the Accord as well. And even the Camry, which held off for a bit, probably wasn't too much slower.

    I guess with all the Hemi Chargers and 300Cs out there, none of them will really become collectible, either? What about the ones with the extra-big Hemis? I think they're up to a 6.4/392 CID now in stuff like the SRT-8?
  • tjc78tjc78 South JerseyPosts: 9,036
    I'm sure the SRT cars will always command a decent premium over a regular Charger/300 but I don't see them ever really becoming collectible.

    I checked Ebay and you can get an 08 SRTV8 Charger with low miles for mid 20s pricing. That is a lot of performance for the money.

    2017 Buick Enclave / 2019 Volvo S60 T6 Inscription

  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,490
    The Impala SS from 94-96 looks "bad"---a bit sinister like the GNX was. Very popular as a black on black car. You can breath on 'em pretty easily, too, and get some decent power out of them.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 23,560
    Heck, here's a brand-new 300C SRT-8 local to me, with an internet price of only $53K. http://fitzmall.com/fitzway/carfind/RESULTSB.ASP?V_XREFID=FLP801997:2012-04-17T2- 3:15:03.900

    Well, okay, it's a leftover 2012, but it's not used!

    That's more than I'd ever want to pay for a car, unless I was filthy rich (and even then, I think it would take me awhile to acclimate to spending that type of money). But still, for the amount of car you get, that doesn't seem all that expensive to me.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 23,560
    Very popular as a black on black car.

    Wasn't black the only color you could get them in for 1994-95? In 1996, I know they had sort of a lichen-green color, and I think a burgundy as well. There was a lady who worked at the parts counter at a local Yates Auto parts who owned one. Dunno if they're still around or not, but this one closed up awhile ago.

    Sharp looking car. If I were to get one, I'd go for that green. Even if it's not as desireable as the black.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,490
    Yeah but you'd lose 1/2 your money in 3-4 years on depreciation on an SRT.
  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Posts: 4,600
    To state the obvious, there's always the used option. The question then is, would you really want to own a 300C SRT-8 or other modern RWD Mopar, or is your liking for RWD Mopars, in fact, limited to the older ones?
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 23,560
    Yeah but you'd lose 1/2 your money in 3-4 years on depreciation on an SRT.

    Which is one reason I'm not in the market for one! :P

    BTW, I wonder how much my 2012 Ram is going to lose, after 3-4 years? I've thought about trying to get out of my habit of buying a vehicle and driving it until it drops dead or gets totaled, just to get a little more variety. Plus, I'm starting to get fascinated by the idea of trading before it gets to the age that the maintenance and repair bills start mounting.

    Even by the age of 5, this truck probably won't have 35,000 miles on it. Had it 5 months, and it only has about 1600 miles! It's a Hemi, but I'm sure its regular cab, long bed configuration is going to hurt it come trade-in time. To me, that's the configuration a truck "should" be, but these days it seems to be a rarity.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 23,560
    The question then is, would you really want to own a 300C SRT-8 or other modern RWD Mopar, or is your liking for RWD Mopars, in fact, limited to the older ones?

    Well, I didn't really care for the 300/Magnum/Charger when they first came out, because the interiors seemed a big step down compared to the old Intrepid/Concorde/300M. I would've considered a used one at the right price, though. I would've avoided the 2.7 like the plague. It was enough engine for my old Intrepid, but in the RWD LX cars, they really needed to make the 3.5 standard. The 2.7 is also a VERY expensive engine to repair/replace when it does fail.

    I really like what they did with the 2011 restyle, though on the 300 and Charger, with my preference leaning toward the Charger. In fact, if I had to replace my Park Ave, I think I'd go with a Charger. Honestly though, the 3.6 V-6 is probably more than enough for me. I think it's still good for 0-60 in the 7 second range, and runs fine on 87 octane.

    A 4-cyl intermediate, like an Accord, Altima, Fusion, or Mazda6, is probably all the car I need. But a Charger is the kind of car I want! :shades:
Sign In or Register to comment.